What the others are saying about Hotze’s endorsement

Kris Banks, president of Houston’s GLBT Political Caucus, which has endorsed Parker, questioned why Locke did not distance himself from Hotze.

“He came to us seeking our endorsements, saying he thinks same-sex couples should have legal recognition and the city should have domestic partnerships,” Banks said in a statement to the Chronicle. “I cannot believe he has not repudiated this piece yet. It’s very disappointing and makes us question his ability to treat all Houstonians with respect.”

Martha has examined Locke’s earnestly pro-gay rights answers on candidate questionnaires before. What I want to know is, when Locke met with Hotze and asked for his endorsement, did Hotze know or care about any of that? Or was the fact that Locke wasn’t the gay candidate good enough for him? I know, I know, I cannot understand the logic of a madman like Hotze. But I’d like to understand Locke’s logic. How could he think this was okay? I don’t get it, I just don’t get it.

Anyway. How about the other “beneficiaries” of Hotze’s curse blessing? We already know about Stephen Costello, who quickly rejected Hotze’s endorsement. I’ve seen some of my compatriots be cynical of that, and while I understand that sentiment, I don’t share it. I give Costello full marks for doing the right thing.

Councilman M.J. Khan, who faces fellow councilman Ronald Green in a runoff for City Controller, said he had never been interviewed or screened by anyone associated with Hotze. Khan said he wants the support of all Houstonians, but rejects intolerance and wants to be judged solely on his record and qualifications.

[…]

[Jack] Christie, who is challenging Councilwoman Jolanda Jones for the council’s at-large 5 seat, said that when he found out about Hotze’s intentions to send an endorsement mailer, he called Bruce Hotze, Steven’s brother, and told him he did not want to be included.

I give Christie an A, too. Khan’s response is weaker, but if he really never did meet with Hotze then it’s still better than Locke’s. See how easy this is if you never dance with the devil in the first place?

Al Hoang, who is locked in a runoff for District F with Mike Laster, said he was proud to have Hotze’s endorsement. Andrew C. Burks, who is running against Councilwoman Sue Lovell, said he welcomed anyone’s endorsement in the race.

I was always supporting Mike Laster, who’s a great guy and someone I’ve been acquainted with for years, but in case you needed a reason, there you have it. As for Burks, all I can say is that this is exactly the kind of response I’d expect from a perennial candidate. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Brenda Stardig, who is running for an open seat in District A against Lane Lewis and also was endorsed by Hotze, could not be reached for comment.

9 Comments

What I want to know is, when Locke met with Hotze and asked for his endorsement, did Hotze know or care about any of that? Or was the fact that Locke wasn’t the gay candidate good enough for him? I know, I know, I cannot understand the logic of a madman like Hotze. But I’d like to understand Locke’s logic. How could he think this was okay? I don’t get it, I just don’t get it.

_____________________________________

Of course Steven Hotze knew his position and simply held his nose when he made the endorsement which was not made on the basis of a candidate’s position on “gay rights” which indicates, strangely, that perhaps Steven Hotze has “moved on” so to speak. Otherwise he would have withheld an endorsement and made a point as to why he did.

Who is really dividing this community is Annise Parker who is basically telling people that if they don’t vote for her, they are homophobes. Appalling.

Several members of the Federal Club of Human Rights Campaign are supporting Gene Locke because of his stated positions as opposed to the stated positions of Annise Parker. Many are afraid to openly do so for fear of being harasse by the “radical elements” supporting Annise Parker. But others like Tim Surratt and Mike Holloman are openly supporting Gene Locke. Because they are supporting the candidate who supports equal rights for all Houstonians.

“Several members of the Federal Club of Human Rights Campaign are supporting Gene Locke…..”

If Baby Snooks was trying to impress, it won’t work. No one cares about your “Federal Club” labels. Anyone who has paid attention knows that the HRC has been worthless for years. The HRC was completely worthless in the California No on 8 campaign. The HRC has no grass-roots support and simply tries to take the money of its members. Take a look at its Washington DC office building. What a waste.

BS Baby Snooks! Hotze has “moved on”? Perhaps, to the extent that the Hotze name is a byword for antigay bigotry, Hotze no longer has to spell out his bigotry? Not likely. If he had moved on, then he would not have mentioned that each of the opponents of his endorsees was endorsed by a gay political group. The next BS is accusing Parker of dividing the community and asserting that she is saying that her opponents are homophobes. Parker has gone out of her way not to address gay issues. It’s her opponents who are raising the issue. Give us a break, BS! The bottom line is that for a Democrat, soliciting the support of Hotze is unforgivable. Hotze is the third rail for Democrats. By making that approach, Locke betrayed the principles of the Democratic Party and destroyed his personal credibility as a liberal. I thought Locke would do the smart thing, as Costello and Christie have done, by refusing the endorsement (and still benefiting from it). But it has taken too long for him to produce as forthright a response as Costello and Christie. This looks like desperation to me.

I’ve known Parker for too many years and did not vote for her in the first round. She is just too conservative and opportunistic for me (I remember when she was a Republican). I initially had a favorable opinion of Locke, but he has forfeited my support for any position he seeks now or in the future. He has crossed the line and should pay the price.

Parker has gone out of her way not to address gay issues.
___________________

And that of course raises the question of why she hasn’t – are they simply not important to her or is she pandering in her own way to Hotze? As for her campaign, the internet is full of the “if you don’t vote for Annise Parker you are a homophobe” message. Maybe she’s not saying but they are. And yet she might be considered one herself simply on the basis that she doesn’t really support equality. Not when it endangers her political career. She is if nothing else a hypocrite.

I was quite content not voting for either of them. I am so tired of hearing that if I don’t vote for her I am a homophobe that I will join quite a few others who will vote for Gene Locke and hope he wins by one vote. Mine.

Last time I checked the ballot does not have (D) or (R) beside the name. As for the significance of it Richard Murray earlier was interviewed about the growing movement of Independents and state 47% of voters no longer identity with either party. And don’t care about “party purity” or anything else with regard to the parties.

They are fed up with the corruption. Which is the result of the parties themselves which promote it.

As for the mayor, whichever won wins, the corruption will remain at City Hall. They both serve the same masters. You just refuse to see it.

Baby Snooks: You are spot on. Annise Parker’s campaign has continuously attacked Locke by saying that because Hotze talked to him, he must be “courting” the anti-gay crowd. Parker’s campaign manager Adam Harris was interviewed by Channel 11 on the Hotze issue and the reporter himself said Harris couldn’t go a sentence without mentioning Locke’s name instead of addressing Hotze. Then Parker goes to a Republican forum to “court” the same conservative support and doesn’t even mention the Hotze issue. Hypocrisy at it’s worst.

The people who are equating anyone-who-doesn’t-support-Parker with homophobes are no better than the people who swift-boated Kerry. Or the teabaggers. They’ll find any excuse to create a conspiracy or be “appalled.” They’ve been beating the drums on Locke’s tax returns. I wonder if they’ll be asking for Locke’s birth certificate next.

[…] his office in order to get a response.) Another is that as Hoang was the only winning candidate to proudly embrace the Hotze endorsement, he sees himself as a counterweight of some kind to Mayor Parker and that he intends to stand firm […]

[…] than “there’s nothing good on TV”, he might have actually won. Given that Burks accepted the endorsement of gay-hating Steven Hotze in his runoff against Lovell, I’m glad he lost then and I hope he […]